8.10.00
And They Thought Gore Was Stiff...
-- OR --
A Kinder, Perkier Nation
Perhaps if idiot-box watchers had realized the hot-chick potential of the National Republican Convention, more of them would have tuned in. Sure, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader graced the GOP with his presence, but did you know that the Surprise Party was represented, too?

Yep. GetSetClub.com unveiled its more-than-just-a-pretty-face candidate for pres, Vanessa. The lovely, curvy African-American is "said to have a college degree and a history of struggles and successes," the New York Times reported in its 8/6 edition. According to GetSetClub's Manifesto, her candidacy is "part of the initiative to put a woman in the White House by 2010."

Oh, and by the way, she's a doll. Uh...she's a toy. Oh, you know what I mean: she's not real!

Vanessa is one of GetSetClub's GFIVE Activity dolls. Her four pals, Eva, Isabella, Gia and Fiona, (who look more like guest stars on Pam Anderson's V.I.P. than political office wannabes) are also running on the Surprise Party ticket.

Believe it or not, although she may be bright, Vanessa wasn't the first to covet a night in the Lincoln Bedroom. You see, the once complacent high priestess of plastic, Barbie, was the first dolly to declare her decision to run in the presidential race.

Needless to say, Barbie's campaign managers at Mattel were miffed by Vanessa's unexpected candidacy. At the GOP snooze-fest in Philly, Mattel struck back in classic retaliatory political spirit against GetSetClub's antics by "stuffing little Barbie doll delegates into the Republicans' welcome bags," according to the NY Times brief.

Apparently Vanessa and her GFIVE running mates have bodies that are "great for posing and gesturing." Lucky for Barbie, however, Vanessa's fingers cannot be posed.

So, did the girly presidential contenders offer the media the meat and potatoes it claims to have missed at the Republican convention? Well, anonymous sources tell The Lowbrow Lowdown that Barbie's platform has yet to garner much response from either the press, or what she called the "big, scary, icky, old guys" on the Republican ticket. Although, that unnamed source has revealed that Dick Cheney's daughter, Mary, was "less-than-impressed" with Barbie's promises of "a hot pink corvette in every gal's garage and a hunky blond boyfriend in every gal's bed."

Mile High Ad Club
-- OR --
Why not Sponsor a Moratorium on Airplane Jokes?
"Howdy folks, this is your captain speaking. That turbulence we've been experiencing has been sponsored by your local Catholic Church -- Repent now, or risk eternal life in the fiery pits of hell."

Imagine hearing that on your next flight. Or how about this: "The following in-flight safety instructions are brought to you by Lots-a-Lard Cheesecakes -- Go ahead --Indulge. Hey, we all gotta go sometime."

All right, so it's not that bad yet. But at least that would be a lot more interesting than imprinting advertisements on bags of airplane snacks. That's what Harvey Alpert & Co.'s "Brand in the Hand" is offering to advertisers. According to the 7/28 Business2.0 piece, "Since the nut company that [Harvey Alpert & Co] represents (King Nut Co.) isn't concerned with having a retail presence, they will let another company use their little bags to attract attention. And in turn, the airline can get the snacks at cheaper prices."

So far, weather.com and KennethCole.com have sponsored nut sacks, and talks with the Salt Lake City Olympics are in progress as well.

"Alpert foresees taking the concept further by coordinating the snack package ads with larger and more informative ads in the in-flight magazines, and also putting ads on beverage napkins and tray liners," says Biz2.0.

I think Alpert should offer his advertisers the opportunity to brand the entire food-flight experience by sponsoring air-sickness bags, complimentary antacid tablets and toilet paper.

The Mayor of Ostrichville
-- OR --
Risky Anti-progress Scheme
During his big acceptance speech at last week's GOP convention, George W. likened the impact of his potential presidency to that of great moments in history. "If my opponent had been there....when Edison was testing the light bulb, it would have been a 'risky anti-candle scheme,' he jabbed.

Well, as reported on 8/1 on CnetNews.com, under the guise of promoting online security, a move against a "risky anti-taxation scheme" has launched just north of Chi-town.

In a stunning display of reality denial, Niles, Illinois Mayor Nicholas Blase has supported funding by the village of Niles for a low-budget TV PSA that employs scare-tactics to detract interest in online shopping. In the spot, an actor with a "lawyerly appearance" prompts cable-TV viewers to "Ask yourself, Do I want a chance...at becoming a fraud victim?"

You see, as far as Blase is concerned, Niles simply cannot risk the loss of "$15 million in sales tax--80 percent of all city revenues--the area's stores bring in each year," as noted in the Cnet story.

If this guy really wants to spur business, he ought to get creative. Why not create a tax for all stores with online presences? Or better yet, he could pull a Mayor Quimby by establishing a "going out of business" tax applicable to all bricks and mortars in Niles!

All Ads Considered?
-- OR --
NPR Gets in Touch with Its Mercenary Side
Lately it seems as though NPR ought to be an acronym for Negligent Promotional Radio, as opposed to National Public Radio. If the increasing frequency of those "enhanced sponsorship messages" (a.k.a. ads) isn't disillusioning enough, now we can look forward to blatant advertisements on NPR Online. On 8/2, Commercial Alert, a consumer watchdog organization affiliated with Green man Ralph Nader, reported that "[NPR's plans for NPR Online] will likely include for-profit marketing, distribution and e-commerce, as well as banner ads and a mechanism for equity participants."

Talks among NPR, its Board of Directors and its member stations are currently in progress, yet no definite decisions have been made at this time regarding the once taboo ad support. Realizing the immensity of this touchy subject, the less-than-scrupulous broadcasters have "conducted focus groups to probe public sentiment about the commercialization of NPR," according to Commercial Alert's release.

Direct relationships with for-profit ventures have already been established, according to a 6/22 press release featured in NPR Online's "press room." That's right: the veneer of integrity is peeling away from NPR. The membership organization "renowned for its journalistic excellence" has paired up with BigChalk.com, a joint venture of Bell & Howell and Infonautics (both are public companies) in order to "launch an educational Web resource featuring NPR content and audio, combined with lesson plans, student activities and opportunities for classroom collaboration." Don't forget, NPR struck a deal with AOL back in '99) to provide news coverage, easily accessible through AOL keyword: NPR.

Regrettably, this news comes as no surprise. Of course, the audience's perception of potentially biased news reporting is at the heart of NPR's hesitancy to form full-on ad opportunities on its site. (Side note: Think about it, though, can we really expect any news to be completely unbiased? As far as I'm concerned, no journalist, reporter or news source can be completely impartial. Why? Because people -- people with personal experiences and perspectives -- are involved, plain and simple.)

Still, the commercialization of public broadcasting puts another brick in that wall between journalism and integrity. I wonder, however, just how many people against the corporate "coup du radio public" have actually donated money to fund their local NPR station....

(Email NPR's President & CEO Kevin Klose and/or Ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin to express your concern about NPR's commercialization.)

Is Money the Root of All Content?
-- OR --
Only the Sheep Survive
Freethinkers from across the Web, whether they be Objectivist-sympathizers or just plain cheap, agree that this Napster hubbub of late is much ado about nothing. As characterized by James V. DeLong in his 8/3 Intellectual Capital commentary, many folks seem to think that "charging money for intellectual products is to be sneered at" and that advertising models should support websites that offer access to free content.

DeLong compares the current state of free content sites with ad-supported offline broadcasting models. "[A]s in any sponsorship model, the product being sold is not the program, and the customers are not the audience. Instead, the audience is a product that is sold to advertisers, who are the real customers."

This is a profound statement, and perhaps in the minds of many big media execs, it's the case. However, if, like those sycophantic suits striving to appease their audiences of advertisers, any TV-producer, filmmaker, writer, musician -- or magician for that matter -- considers the desires of her audience (or customer) too much, this is certainly bound to compromise personal principles and corrupt overall goals.

DeLong's argument for payment-based models is convincing and extraordinarily relevant in this day and age. However, free access to artistic "triumphs" (as he refers to them) and ideas enables the proliferation of these triumphs and ideas. It is difficult to ensure payment for any form of intellectual property without the knowledge of its existence, or a fan-base. As a staunch supporter of independent music, film and artistic endeavors in general, I'd argue that promotion is paramount to the success of any creative venture. For example, if I were charged to download a song from some no-name band's site, there's virtually no chance that I'd do so; yet, if I were able to download a tune for free, and I dug it, there's a great chance that I'd go out and buy their album or pay to see them play.

As illustrated in his essay, DeLong rues the day that the ever-present, ad-supported Web content model results in the same insipid, diluted sludge meant to attract the lowest-common-denominator of TV watchers (many, including myself, believe it already has). The thing that he is disregarding here is the 'chicken or the egg' factor. In other words, do the masses swallow slop because that's what they're offered? Who's to say they don't demand the mindless pap they so willingly lap? I think the unexpected success of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" could be a testament to that.

Despite my dispute of DeLong's theory, the throngs of Lowbrow Lowdown fans have assured me that my content, like that of the Wall Street Journal's Interactive Edition, the New York Times site, and Inside, is worthy of payment. So, from now on, in order to attract only the most intellectually-discerning audience, site registration and $2.50 per column download will be required of all Lowbrow Lowdown readers. In addition, my planned sponsorship talks with Pepsi, Shell Oil and Archer Daniels Midland have been canceled.